Minutes for Strategic Planning Committee meeting, Mar 25 2010, 4.00PM official page

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 10 December 2009, attached.

DECIDED: That

the minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 10 December 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Strategic Planning Committee considered the reports of the Head of Development Management that made recommendations for approval of planning applications, together with the late information report circulated at the meeting as the information therein was not available prior to the dispatch of the agenda.

The late information report referred to items 5 and 6.

The Area Planning Manager reported on the above application, advised that it was compliant with the relevant local planning policies, and was therefore recommended for approval. However, he recommended that approval be on the basis of an additional condition to require that details of the proposed outside storage operation be agreed with Officers, prior to development commencing..

A Member asked what measures would be taken to address potential light pollution at the site. The Area Planning Manager reported that no additional outside lighting was proposed, and the existing lighting did not appear to be creating problems. He confirmed that a condition could be imposed which would require any proposed additional lighting to be agreed by Officers.

A Member asked what measures would be taken to control residue from the operation. The Area Planning Manager reported that this would be controlled by the operating permit that would be required from the Environment Agency.

A Member asked if this site was one of the four sites in the Council’s Waste PFI scheme. The Area Planning Manager reported that it was not one of these sites, as it would deal with recyclable waste, rather than residual waste.

A Member asked whether potential noise nuisance had been taken into account in consideration of the application. The Area Planning Manager reported that no objections to the application had been received from the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit, and that the proposed Condition 4 in the report would address the issue of noise control.

A Member asked whether the site would be open to the general public. The Area Planning Manager reported that it would not be a ‘bring-to’ site, and would receive only the recyclables collected by the Council’s waste collection service.

A Member asked what the acceptance policy would be on the nature of materials that would be allowed on site, and what controls would be in place to ensure the acceptance policy was adhered to. The Area Planning Manager and Solicitor responded that this issue would be an operational matter that would be governed under the operating permit that would be required from the Environment Agency, and would be controlled under the management procedures and policies of the operator.

A Member expressed concern about the outside storage of waste material and sought clarification as to what was proposed to be stored outside. The Area Planning Manager reported that it was proposed to store only recyclable materials, after sorting, and in bulk loads/bales. Such outside storage was already carried out at the municipal depot in Bumpers Lane, Chester, where it did not create any problems.

A proposal to approve the application, subject to conditions, and representations regarding the need to comply with the relevant operating permit, was carried unanimously.

DECIDED: That

this application be approved subject to :

(1)               additional conditions to require that details of outside storage and any additional lighting be agreed with Officers.

(2)               the Head of Planning and Transport writing to the site operator on behalf of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier that day.

The Planning Officer summarised the application and drew Members’ attention to the change from the outline application, previously approved, namely the proposal to start the hours of operation from 7.30am, rather than 8am. This change had been requested to assist the management of the construction traffic during the construction period.

A Member expressed concern about the proposed routing of construction traffic along the north section of the A41, through heavily populated areas where many children had to cross the A41 to get to school. She was also concerned about the impact on pedestrians of additional traffic along Capenhurst Lane, with its narrow pavements, during the ‘school run’ hours when children would be walked to and from Capenhurst School. She was also concerned at the prospect that construction traffic might use the A41 from a northerly direction, through the very busy villages of Little Sutton and Great Sutton. She enquired whether there was any potential for the transport of material by rail, as Capenhurst Station was close to the site.

The Planning Officer reported that discussions had been held with the applicant (Urenco Chemplants Ltd) and relevant agencies regarding the routing of traffic and, although it was acknowledged to present some difficulties, the proposed route was considered the least disruptive.The proposed earlier start time of 7.30am was also intended to help in this respect, particularly in avoiding the peak congestion. Discussions would be on-going to address any problems that emerged as the work got underway. There would also be a travel plan for staff to encourage them to use rail transport during the construction phase. The Planning Officer advised that, although it could not be imposed as an enforceable condition, representations could be made to Urenco that the company endeavour to ensure that construction traffic largely arrived at Capenhurst Lane from a southerly direction (ie by travelling along the A41 in a northerly direction, from the south). The Area Planning Manager reported that it was unlikely to be feasible to transport materials by rail as the site was not connected to the rail system, and it was also unlikely that the suppliers of materials would be rail-connected.

In response to a Members’ request for clarification regarding information still awaited on a number of conditions attached to the previous outline application, the Area Planning Manager explained how this process operated, usually under powers delegated to the Officers.

A proposal that the Head of Planning and Transport be authorised to approve this application, subject to the consideration of any further comments received as a result of consultations, and to representations being made to Urenco regarding the movement of construction traffic along the A41, was carried unanimously.

DECIDED: That

the Head of Planning and Transport be authorised to approve this application subject to:

(1)               the consideration of any further comments received as a result of consultations

(2)               representations being made to Urenco on behalf of the Committee,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier that day.

Present at the meeting was Paul Kentish who spoke in support of the application as the applicant’s agent.

Members’ attention was drawn to the late information report, in which it was pointed out that Little Stanney Parish Council had been omitted from the initial consultation on the application. The Parish Council had now been contacted but had not yet responded.

A Member spoke in support of the application, and emphasised the need to adopt a flexible approach over the application of planning policy in this particular instance, and in the context of the current economic climate.

A Member enquired whether the future use of the building could be stipulated, ie as a bookshop. The Area Planning Manager reported that such restrictive planning control would not be appropriate in this respect.

A Member referred to the applicant’s request for a formal modification/discharge of a planning obligation in respect of a Section 106 Agreement, dated 8 June 1999, related to the use of mezzanine floors, and asked whether the grant of such a request for Units R4A (‘Next’) and R13 (formerly ‘Borders’) would remove that obligation from other stores at Cheshire Oaks that might currently be subject to the same. The Planning Officer reported that it would not remove such controls from other stores, which would be governed by the Section 106 requirements until 2012.

A Member expressed concern that to approve the application might set a precedent, and that there might be an adverse cumulative effect and impact on Ellesmere Port town centre, should such development be permitted throughout the Cheshire Oaks and Coliseum Leisure and Retail Parks. The Planning Officer responded that cumulative impact could be a material consideration, but that to approve this application would not set a precedent as any future applications would be considered individually and on their own merits.

A proposal to approve the application was carried by 7 votes for to 2 against, with 1 abstention.

DECIDED: That

this application be approved subject to:

(1)               consideration of any comments from Little Stanney Parish Council

(2)               the completion of the planning obligations set out in the report

(3)               the conditions set out in the report

There was no urgent business.